Draft an issue-spotting memo that separates what you know from what needs a lawyer's actual research

Draft an issue-spotting memo from the fact pattern below — a structured first pass that organizes the facts and flags the legal questions worth researching, not a legal opinion or conclusion on how those questions resolve.

FACT PATTERN
Employee was terminated two days after filing an internal complaint about unpaid overtime; termination letter cites 'restructuring' with no other documentation of performance issues.

WHO THIS MEMO IS FOR
In-house HR director deciding whether to escalate to outside employment counsel.

SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ALREADY IN MIND
Possible retaliation claim; whether the restructuring justification is documented enough to hold up.

JURISDICTION OR REGULATORY CONTEXT, IF KNOWN
Employee is based in California; company is aware California has specific retaliation protections but has not confirmed current statutory text.

MEMO STRUCTURE
Issue: state each distinct legal question the fact pattern raises, as a question, not an answer — "does the notice clause's ambiguous language create an obligation to X" rather than a stated conclusion. Rule: for each issue, state only what legal framework or type of law would govern this question in general terms (contract interpretation principles, a named statute if I've told you which one applies, a regulatory regime) — do not state what any specific law actually says or requires, since you have not been given a verified source for its current text and jurisdictions vary. Application: apply the general framework category to these specific facts only to the extent of identifying which facts are legally relevant and why, without concluding how the question resolves. Conclusion: instead of a legal conclusion, state what specific research, document, or expert input would be needed to actually answer the question, and how urgent that research is relative to any deadline in the facts.

WHAT NOT TO DO
Never state what a statute or regulation requires, what a court would likely hold, or which party would likely prevail — treat every substantive legal question as open pending actual legal research, because you have no way to verify current, jurisdiction-specific law from a fact pattern alone, and presenting a guess as an answer here would be indistinguishable from unqualified legal advice. If I've stated a specific law or case as a known fact in the input, you may reference it as given, but do not extend it, interpret its scope, or predict its application beyond what I explicitly told you.

OUTPUT FORMAT
For each issue: Issue / Governing Framework (general category only) / Relevant Facts / Research Needed / Urgency. Then a one-paragraph summary ranking which issue needs research first given any deadline pressure in the facts. Close with a clearly labeled statement that this is an internal issue-spotting draft only, not a legal opinion or advice, and that it must be reviewed, researched, and completed by a qualified lawyer before any of these questions are treated as answered or acted upon.